OCR Specification focus:
‘the Siberian expedition; the Treaty of Versailles and resentments; the Washington Conference’
Japan’s post-First World War position was shaped by military intervention in Siberia, international treaties, and growing resentment towards Western-imposed restrictions on its ambitions.
The Siberian Expedition, 1918–1922
Context of Intervention
The Siberian Expedition took place in the aftermath of the Russian Revolution and during the Russian Civil War. The Allied powers, including Britain, France, the United States, and Japan, intervened in Siberia to support anti-Bolshevik forces. Japan saw this as both a strategic and economic opportunity.
Strategic motives:
Prevent the spread of Bolshevism into East Asia.
Extend Japan’s influence over Siberia and northern Manchuria.
Economic motives:
Secure valuable raw materials, especially timber and coal.
Protect Japanese investments and railway concessions in the region.
Scale of Involvement
Unlike other Allied powers, Japan deployed a large contingent. By 1919, Japan had over 70,000 troops in Siberia compared to around 7,000 American troops. This disparity alarmed Western governments, who suspected Japan of using the intervention to advance its own territorial ambitions.
Outcomes of the Expedition
Japan initially occupied key areas including Vladivostok and parts of eastern Siberia.
Western suspicion grew, particularly from the United States, which pressured Japan to withdraw.
By 1922, Japan formally ended its expedition, but the operation had lasting consequences for its international reputation.
Siberian Expedition: Japan’s military intervention (1918–1922) in the Russian Civil War, conducted under Allied auspices but with the hidden aim of regional expansion.
Japan’s withdrawal left it frustrated; while costly in resources and manpower, the expedition had failed to achieve long-term territorial or economic gains.
Allied commanders, including Japan’s Gen. Ōtani Kikuzō and the U.S. Maj. Gen. William S. Graves, in Vladivostok during the Siberian expedition, 1918–19. The image highlights the joint yet uneasy nature of Allied operations in Russia’s Far East. Details beyond Japan’s role (e.g., other Allied officers present) appear here for context only. Source
The Treaty of Versailles and Japanese Ambitions
Japan’s Role in the First World War
Japan had entered the war on the Allied side, seizing German possessions in the Pacific (such as the Mariana, Caroline, and Marshall Islands) and Germany’s leased territories in Shandong, China. These acquisitions boosted Japan’s standing as a regional power.
Versailles Settlement
At the Treaty of Versailles (1919), Japan was granted:
Mandate over the former German Pacific islands north of the equator.
Control of former German privileges in Shandong, sparking protests in China (notably the May Fourth Movement).
However, Japan’s international prestige was damaged by the rejection of its Racial Equality Proposal. This amendment, proposed by Japan to the Covenant of the League of Nations, sought recognition of racial equality among member states. Strong opposition, particularly from Britain and Australia, ensured it was defeated.
Sources of Resentment
Perception of inequality: Japan felt treated as a second-class power despite its wartime contributions.
Chinese backlash: Chinese hostility towards Japanese control of Shandong undermined regional diplomacy.
Tensions with the USA: American concerns over Japanese expansion in China and the Pacific intensified.
Racial Equality Proposal: A Japanese amendment to the League of Nations Covenant (1919) calling for equal treatment of all member states, rejected under pressure from Britain and its dominions.
Japan emerged from Versailles both strengthened and humiliated—its empire had grown, but its ambitions for global equality had been dismissed.
The Japanese delegation outside their Paris residence during the peace negotiations of 1919. Their frustrated aims—most notably racial equality and Shandong—fed post-war resentment that shaped interwar Japanese nationalism. The photograph includes figures beyond those discussed in the syllabus but remains tightly focused on Japan’s delegation. Source
Rising International Frictions and the Washington Conference
The Washington Conference (1921–1922)
In the aftermath of Versailles and the Siberian Expedition, the United States took the lead in addressing Pacific tensions. The Washington Conference was convened to prevent a naval arms race and stabilise East Asian relations.
Key agreements included:
The Four-Power Treaty (1921): Britain, the USA, Japan, and France agreed to consult each other in the event of Pacific disputes.
The Five-Power Naval Treaty (1922): Established a ratio of capital ships (USA: 5, Britain: 5, Japan: 3, France: 1.75, Italy: 1.75).
The Nine-Power Treaty (1922): Upheld the principle of Chinese sovereignty and equal trading rights (the Open Door Policy).
Impact on Japan
Limitations on naval power: Japan accepted naval inferiority compared to the USA and Britain, which many saw as a national humiliation.
Recognition as a Pacific power: Japan retained its Pacific mandates but was constrained from further expansion.
Resentment at Western dominance: Many Japanese nationalists viewed the agreements as an attempt to contain Japan.
Open Door Policy: A diplomatic principle promoted by the United States, affirming equal trading rights in China and opposition to exclusive spheres of influence.
Consequences for Japanese Politics and Society
Growth of Nationalist Resentment
The combination of Versailles disappointments, withdrawal from Siberia, and naval limitations fed into a growing sense of grievance in Japan:
Politicians and military leaders began questioning whether Western powers would ever treat Japan as an equal.
Nationalist groups argued that Japan should pursue an independent, assertive path free from Western-imposed restrictions.
Economic frustration, combined with the costs of Siberian intervention, sharpened domestic discontent.
Seeds of Future Expansionism
The resentments of the early 1920s did not immediately overturn Japan’s cooperation with the international order, but they laid the foundations for later militarist policies. Leaders increasingly looked towards Asia for opportunities where Japan could assert dominance without Western interference.
Japan’s experience during this period was therefore a turning point: its international ambitions had grown, but its resentment towards Western-imposed limitations created long-term tensions that would resurface in the 1930s.
FAQ
The United States viewed Japan’s deployment of over 70,000 troops—far more than other Allies—as an attempt at territorial expansion rather than a limited anti-Bolshevik mission.
American officials, such as Major General William Graves, reported that Japan appeared more interested in controlling the Trans-Siberian Railway and local resources than in aiding White Russian forces.
This suspicion reinforced U.S. fears of Japan’s growing ambitions in East Asia and hardened attitudes during post-war negotiations.
China expected Germany’s former rights in Shandong to be returned directly to Chinese control, but the Versailles settlement awarded them to Japan instead.
This triggered the May Fourth Movement in 1919, a nationwide protest against both Western powers and Japan.
For Japan, it created long-term hostility with China, damaging its diplomatic position and intensifying perceptions that Japan was an aggressor rather than a cooperative regional partner.
The Siberian Expedition proved expensive and unpopular, fuelling criticism of the government’s handling of foreign policy.
Casualties and financial costs burdened the economy.
Political parties used the expedition to attack rivals, accusing leaders of recklessness and overreach.
It weakened public trust in civilian leadership, creating space for military influence to expand in the 1920s.
The expedition thus indirectly contributed to the erosion of parliamentary authority in Japan.
Japan had hoped the proposal would mark its acceptance as a true equal among the world’s major powers.
Its rejection, driven by British dominions like Australia and supported quietly by the United States, confirmed Japanese fears of entrenched Western racial hierarchies.
This created resentment not only at Versailles but also in Japanese society, where the failure became symbolic of Western unwillingness to respect Japan’s status as a great power.
Naval officers generally viewed the 5:5:3 ratio as a humiliation that limited Japan’s ability to defend its interests in the Pacific.
Some officers argued that the agreement left Japan strategically vulnerable against the United States, which had greater industrial capacity.
Practice Questions
Question 1 (2 marks):
Give two reasons why Japan participated in the Siberian Expedition (1918–1922).
Mark Scheme:
1 mark for each valid reason identified (maximum 2 marks).
Acceptable answers include:
To prevent the spread of Bolshevism into East Asia (1).
To protect Japanese investments and railway concessions in the region (1).
To secure raw materials such as timber and coal (1).
To expand Japan’s influence over Siberia and northern Manchuria (1).
Question 2 (6 marks):
Explain how the Treaty of Versailles and the Washington Conference contributed to Japanese resentment towards Western powers.
Mark Scheme:
Level 1 (1–2 marks): Basic statements with limited development. Example: “Japan was angry because it was treated unfairly.”
Level 2 (3–4 marks): Developed explanation with some supporting detail. Example: “The Treaty of Versailles rejected Japan’s Racial Equality Proposal, which humiliated Japan. At the Washington Conference, Japan’s navy was restricted.”
Level 3 (5–6 marks): Well-developed explanation covering both events with precise evidence and analysis. Example: “At Versailles, Japan was denied its Racial Equality Proposal and faced hostility over control of Shandong, which fuelled resentment at being treated as inferior. At the Washington Conference, the Five-Power Treaty enforced a 5:5:3 battleship ratio, cementing Japanese feelings of humiliation and anger at Western attempts to limit its power.”
Marks awarded for accurate knowledge and clear explanation linking events to resentment.
